How
did I get addicted? Well, I find being with between 40 and 150 people,
preferably in an unstructured setting, very exciting. I learn lots about
myself, about power and leadership, about communication and decision-making,
about how smaller sub-groups relate in the large group context.

The
problem with much group work theory and practical knowledge is that it relates
to small, closed groups. I myself have written lots about such groups and
their on-going processes. My friend Peter Philippson has pointed out [1]
that because of this bias, we tend to think of groups in certain ways. On
this paradigm a group

-
ideally has between 6 and 15 members;

-
consists of people who are physically close together;

-
often meets in a setting isolated from the rest of the world;

-
has things arranged so everyone can witness everything (e.g. in a circle);

-
makes a sharp distinction between members (in-people) and non-members
(outsiders);

-
has members who openly acknowledge and value their co-membership;

-
has a shared task on which all work (even if the task is to study group process
in an unstructured way);

-
should ideally "develop" certain characteristics, such as group
cohesion, intimacy, etc;

-
does not exist when it is not in session;

and
so on.

Our
recognition that this very particular and normative way of thinking of groups
does not reflect the vast majority of social settings in real life, came with
our participation in the un(pre)structured large groups called (by Steve Potter)
"The Street". The Street has a time and space boundary, and
usually incorporates a review.

Within
these boundaries participants are free to interact or not, as they wish.
They may stay on their own, or join with others; they may play or be serious;
they may be disturbed or excited by the lack of structure. Often they will
do all these things.

What
is obvious is that such groups more closely reflect everyday life in the way
that, within the context, personal and social boundaries are constantly forming
and re-forming, and changing their nature in an unpredictable fashion.
There is constant interaction and, even when people are choosing not to
participate in some way, this is part of the process. To describe this we
need a broader definition of "group process" which is based on the
possibility of interaction between people. A group is any collection of people
who are aware of the possibility of interaction and communication.

My
interest in large groups, both structured and unstructured, has had a practical
value. It is particularly useful in the context of work in and with teams
and organisations. Until recently I was a manager of a staff of about 50
people who I regarded as a group; albeit one whose membership was spatially
dispersed, heterogeneous in many respects, and subject to a degree of
change. My interaction with them has been aimed at helping them to
recognise and value the possibilities of their "groupness" - defined
as "options for inter-group communication". I have organised
section meetings which most, though not all, attended (and that ws part of the
process), and done Street-type exercises with them as a large group. Such
work helps them to appreciate their own creative potentialities, though it may
take a little getting used to. Small groups, with their often blinkered
vision of themselves, do not always achieve this.

So
that's how I became addicted to large groups. When, as occasionally
happens, such a group achieves a sense of its power and possibilities, it gives
me a real buzz. Nothing else will do.

*
Originally published in Groupvine magazine Vol. 2, No. 2 of Winter 1992-93.

[1]
In Chapter 10 of Gestalt: Working With Groups, available from Manchester Gestalt
Centre, 7 Norman Road, Manchester M14 5LF.

John
Bernard Harris M.A., C.Q.S.W.,is a former social work manager, and an
experienced group worker and trainer. He has been involved with Gestalt therapy
since 1980, and is an Associate Training and Supervising Member of the Gestalt
Psychotherapy and Training Institute. John is also the founder of MGC
Associates, and has a special interest in working with teams and organisations.
His special interest is in team-building.

John writes extensively, and is author of Gestalt: An Idiosyncratic
Introduction, Working with Anger in Therapy, co-author (with Peter
Philippson) of Gestalt: Working with Groupsand co-editor (with
Peter Philippson) of Topics in Gestalt Therapy, all published by, and
available from, Manchester Gestalt Centre. [www.mgc.org.uk].